Investigations of mitochondrial DNA suggest that subpopulations from the southern Caucasus and Central Asia might represent separate species. The taxonomy of Anatolian water frogs (including this species) is still unclear; some authors suggest that the presence of this species in Türkiye cannot be established on the basis of morphometric data.

There are studies that claim that this species represents a species complex and therefore are questioning the identity of marsh frogs e.g. from western Caucasus area (Ermakov et al. 2016). Some studies suggest that parts of its range, at least in the Balkan peninsula, actually belong to Pelophylax kurtmuelleri (Kolenda et al. 2017).

European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

This species is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, tolerance of a broad range of habitats, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

This is a widespread species in western, central and eastern Europe, also in a large part of the Balkan Peninsula. There are known introduced populations in the southeast United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium, France, and Spain (Villasbuenas de Gata, Cáceres and unspecified localities in Galicia, Cataluña and Comunidad Valenciana). To the north, the species has two confirmed populations in Estonia, the Narva River drainage and the vicinity of Tartu; the former is probably introduced and consists of P. cf. bedriagae and P. ridibundus; the origin of the latter subpopulation is uncertain; S. Litvinchuk pers. comm.). It is largely considered invasive and non-native in parts of western Europe and is currently increasing its range (e.g. Dufresnes et al. 2017), however, the native range is uncertain and not all introduced areas are mapped, and some parts of its range (e.g., in France) may be erroneously coded as native in the distribution map.

Globally, the range extends east beyond the European region to Siberia (Russia) and western Kazakhstan, eastern Iran and east to Afghanistan, and south to Bahrain (origin uncertain) and Saudi Arabia; it is expected in extreme southeastern Azerbaijan, and there are possible records in southeastern Pakistan (Frost 2022).

This is generally a common to abundant species where it occurs.

It is a highly opportunistic amphibian, living in mixed and deciduous forests, forest steppe, and steppe and other grasslands, semi-desert and desert zones. Arid areas are largely colonised through river valleys and channels. The frog prefers open, well-warmed areas with abundant herbaceous vegetation. It is a semi-aquatic species, inhabiting (and breeding in) a wide variety of flowing and stagnant water habitats, from shallow puddles and ponds to large lakes, reservoirs, rivers and brooks. Almost all invaded habitats showed a high invasibility to marsh frogs despite preference for sunny, permanent and vegetated habitats (Denoël et al. 2022). It may also be found in slightly saline water. It is present in many modified habitats.

There are no major threats to this adaptable species. Loss of breeding habitats may lead to localised declines, but it is very resistant to environmental pollution and animals may be found in highly polluted waters (such as chemical or metallurgic pollution) where other amphibian species cannot survive. Severe, or prolonged, droughts may lead to localised population declines of this frog in arid areas. The harvesting of this species for educational and medical research, or food, appears to have little effect on some populations, although the frog-leg trade and high levels of pollution are leading to significant declines in populations in eastern Asia, in the former Yugoslavia (Dzukic, 1996; Ljubisavljevic et al. 2003) and possibly also in Romania. In Türkiye, the harvesting of frog populations allocated to Pelophylax ridibundus for food appears to be a threat, thus the frog-leg trade and very significant levels of pollution due to some industrial areas might be leading to significant declines in populations in Türkiye.

Ranavirus was detected on the species in Hungary (Vörös et al. 2020).

This species is harvested for educational and medical research, and food. It is unclear as to what percentage of specimens are harvested from the wild.

It is listed on Annex V of the EU Natural Habitats Directive and on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and is protected by national legislation in a number of countries. It is listed in a number of national and regional Red Data Books and Lists, and is present in many protected areas. In parts of its range, mitigation measures to reduce road kill have been established.

There is a need to control or eliminate this species where it has been introduced outside its natural range, as it is a threat to native species. For instance Pille et al. (2021) found that invasive marsh frogs preyed on all native amphibian species, with potential strong impact on threatened taxa such as tree frogs.